More on what happens after the Proposition 8 decision

This is a fascinating "what if" analysis from the legal director of Lambda Legal. Don't skip it just because you don't agree with Lambda's position...it walks the case through various appellate procedures and possible outcomes. Highly recommended.

Barack Obama, writing "as a reader and as a father"

Check out this little thank-you note that President Barack Obama wrote to Yann Martel, the author of the wonderful book Life of Pi. I love having a President who's a reader, and who thought it right to let the author know how much he enjoyed sharing the book with his daughter.

I didn't know that Martel was born in Salamanca, Spain, which is one of my favorite places.

"Palin's exuberant incoherence"

Sarah Palin is one of very few off-limits topics in our household, but you should all probably know that the "Palinisms" book is out. Here's an excerpt from Jacob Weinberg's introduction.

The Same Sex Marriage Ruling Will Stand

This isn't a post about how I feel about same sex marriage. This is a post about what happens next.

The ruling by Federal Judge Vaughn Walker that declared a constitutional right to same sex marriage will be upheld by the US Supreme Court. James Taranto writes that the high court will split down ideological lines. 4-4. Justice Kennedy then becomes the swing vote and he has written majority opinions in favor of the rights of homosexuals. 5-4. The ruling stands.

It is being increasingly affirmed within our culture that the functions performed by government and public bodies are strictly secular in nature. Albert Mohler recognizes this when he reads Judge Walker's decision.

Beyond this, Judge Walker claimed to read the minds of California’s voters, arguing that the majority voted for Proposition 8 based on religious opposition to homosexuality, which he then rejected as an illegitimate state interest. In essence, this establishes secularism as the only acceptable basis for moral judgment on the part of voters.

So with same sex marriage legalized across the nation, the debate will become one of religious freedom. If the government adopts the notion that citizens only oppose same sex marriage due to bigotry and prejudice, the government then has a duty to act against such discrimination.

I have friends in "The Navigators," a Christian group that performs outreach on publicly-funded colleges and universities across America. This group (and other religious groups on campus) have been told that they cannot violate the college's anti-discrimination policies when establishing their own constitutions. Therefore, a Muslim can't be denied membership or leadership in a Christian group (and the opposite is true: Christians can join and become leaders in Muslim groups).

That also means that The Navigators (or any religious group) can't deny to anyone a membership or leadership role, even if that person violates the moral code and religious practices of that organization.

Thus, the question becomes whether churches will be allowed to continue to decide for themselves whether or not to perform same sex marriages. You may argue that, since such churches are privately-funded and sit on private property, they are allowed to act according to the will of their denomination.

However, if the government determines that a church's opposition to same sex marriage is discriminatory based on irrational or harmful thought, it has a duty to act. One small penalty would be to withdraw the tax-exempt status of churches and religious organizations in order to withdraw any public "support" for those entities.

I believe that the same sex marriage debate is over. I believe the next discussion is one of protecting free, private religious practice.

Bronte Sisters Power Dolls!

From the days when actions figures ruled, and video games drooled.

Brontesaurus!!!

And the focus shifts to the Supreme Court

My friends know that I was thrilled by yesterday's decision from Judge Vaughn Walker, in which Judge Walker found California's ban on same-sex marriages unconstitutional. Today, I enjoyed Dahlia Lithwick's analysis in Slate and John Schwartz's in the New York Times. Both pieces remind us that this fight is far from over--but there is reason for optimism (and it's not all because of newly-confirmed Justice Kagan).

The Straight Scoop On Social Security

You'll hear a lot of rhetoric regarding Social Security this fall. It's strange to watch politicians twist themselves into knots over the issue, when my generation almost uniformly believes the money won't be there when we retire.

Here's the straight facts before they get lost in the political mumbo-jumbo: the program is paying out more than it takes in.

In a report released this morning, the Social Security’s Trustees confirmed that the program will run a deficit both this year and next. This year, outlays will exceed revenue by $41 billion, marking the first time that the program will run a deficit since 1983. Over the next few decades, the report says, the program’s trust fund will be drawn down. In 2037, the fund will run dry completely, leaving the program to operate exclusively on tax revenues that are only expected to pay for about three quarters of promised benefits.

Even the trust fund is a fallacy, as the "fund" is simply full of IOUs. But I don't want debate over what constitutes a "trust fund" to obscure this sentence:

In 2037, the fund will run dry completely, leaving the program to operate exclusively on tax revenues that are only expected to pay for about three quarters of promised benefits.

It's Not Oldies Music, It's Classic Rock!

Daughter Lauren, noting my love for 80s music, once asked, "why is the music that came out when you were a teenager always a person's favorite music?"

Well, I told her, because it was the soundtrack for some pretty good memories--and it was "our" music.

That said, I continue to amazed at how 80s music continues to be a presence in our culture. Pink Floyd's "Another Brick In The Wall" is now being utilized in opposition to the Iranian government's ban on rock music.

There are any number of hits these days that reference classic songs. But if you're Katy Perry and you make a lot of money on a song about California Girls, you'd better be ready to pay The Beach Boys.

The Ground Zero Mosque Solution

Most folks agree that the private land owners have the right to build it--but here's a new sentiment taking hold on the Internet: we wouldn't be so upset if there STILL WASN'T A GAPING HOLE AT GROUND ZERO. See here and here.

A beautiful and generous statement...

from Jon Lacina's grieving parents. What a gift to his friends and to the Iowa State campus community that united to search for him last winter. Along with a description of the circumstances surrounding their son's death (details that are sure to put many rumors to rest), the Lacinas share some sage advice:

The possible lessons are simple--buddy-up, drink in moderation if you drink, carry a well-charged cell phone with good batteries, and know your physical limitations. After taking reasonable precautions, however, we maintain living life fully is best. Life is precarious, and living every day fully is not just foolish optimism; it is a recognition all of us share the same end no matter what, and not living fully is at best laziness or fear or at worst a denial and a form of disrespect to those, older and younger, who have worked to enrich our lives. These may seem like strong words. They are the words of grieving parents trying to lean into the pain so as to continue moving forward day to day. We believe they express a truth about what it means to truly live, and certainly how we should live to honor our son, Jon.

Loving the hard-to-love

I don't always agree with these guys, but today I love both of them:

First, Christopher Hitchens describes his cancer treatment in Vanity Fair, as only Hitchens could.

And second, Michael Bloomberg opines about the "Ground Zero mosque." Mayor Bloomberg, THANK YOU. Here's a quick excerpt from his speech:

“The simple fact is, this building is private property, and the owners have a right to use the building as a house of worship, and the government has no right whatsoever to deny that right. And if it were tried, the courts would almost certainly strike it down as a violation of the U.S. Constitution.

“Whatever you may think of the proposed mosque and community center, lost in the heat of the debate has been a basic question: Should government attempt to deny private citizens the right to build a house of worship on private property based on their particular religion? That may happen in other countries, but we should never allow it to happen here.

His Wrath Is Expended

I was blessed to come across this post by Shane Vander Hart this morning on salvation. Just two weeks ago, my own pastor preached on some verses included in this post and it has caused a lot of deep thought on my part.

These are the verses:

Christ’s shed blood on the cross atones (makes reparations) for sin and provides for the propitiation of God, (Romans 3:25). It satisfies God’s wrath, (Ephesians 2:3; 5:6).

My pastor challenged the congregation: if God's wrath is expended, why are Christians seen by unbelievers as hateful or judgmental? Without compromising the clear principles of scripture, we are called to be ambassadors of Christ, extending His love, grace, and mercy.

But in our current "crossfire culture", it's wrath that brings the Internet hits and the talk show ratings. It just depends on which god that you want to worship.

Update: The link referenced above no longers works! See Shane's comment below to find the new URL.

This Study Requires Further Study

Here's a theory of mine: American taxpayers have funded studies of absolutely every infinitesimal thing that can be studied. So we're simply left with studies that state the obvious...or conclude that the topic being studied needs more study.

Today's study reportedly reveals that the closer that a college freshman is located to a dining hall, the more weight that freshman will gain.

Except that conclusion doesn't apply to men. So we need more study.

I wonder how much we'd cut off the deficit if we stopped doing studies. NO--I'm not talking about ending the search for cures for diseases. I am talking about not funding studies of things that aren't really important. How would we identify what's not important? I guess we'd need a study.

But seriously, aren't the co-researchers embarrassed to put out a study in which the results may not be reliable and on which no results can be ascertained? Or plan of action put in place?

Shark Week: Encouraging Bad Shark Behavior

It's the biggest television week of the summer: Shark Week on Discovery Channel. A week full of programming featuring sharky bad behavior.

Unfortunately, we have refused to heed the warnings of our mothers: "don't encourage them." Sharks, full of ebullience due to all the attention, have begun biting people --no doubt hopeful of some media attention.

Oh, and when you click on the Shark Week website, I bet you'll do what I did: click on the icon marked "recipes." I was wondering if I was going to get the chance to turn the tables and bite some shark.

Permissible But Not Beneficial

While I enjoy my freedom as an American, I often think of what Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians: "Everything is permissible for me"--but not everything is beneficial."

I thought about that verse today as Ann Althouse and Juan Williams comment on the proposed "Ground Zero Mosque."

It's unfortunate that so many people confuse the right to do something — which I presume here — and whether it's a good idea to do it. Many — perhaps most — of the bad things people do are not illegal. You can say someone has a legal right to do something — and even enthusiastically support that right — and still tell them that what they are doing is horribly wrong.

Howard Kurtz And The "Crossfire Culture"

In the past few years, I've attended multiple Republican fund-raisers and accompanied my wife to a couple of (gasp!) Democratic events.

At the events, the rhetoric is incendiary. And that's okay. The speakers at such events seek to whip up the passions of attendees. A candidate needs these people to lick envelopes, put up signs, make calls, and give EVEN MORE MONEY.

In the last few years, this rhetoric has spilled out of the fund-raisers and into every corner of the media. News and talk show hosts, as well as their guests, have realized that extreme comments equal ratings.

When I hear the latest complaints about "who said what," I'll often shrug. People often mistake media figures as movement leaders--they are not. Their goal is to snag high ratings and the healthy advertising revenue associated with such ratings.

Howard Kurtz of The Washington Post attempts to call a "time out" and provides some even-handed analysis of the situation. On Twitter, he calls this era a period of "self-immolation" of the media:

All the incentives these days -- for ratings and circulation and Web hits and just getting noticed -- lie in the direction of running and gunning. Many news consumers are sending a message that they simply want their own views echoed and amplified. But if journalists devote much of their energy to savaging one another, can they really be surprised that we look so horribly scarred?